[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

Wed Aug 27 03:05:52 UTC 2014

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess the details will surface during tomorrow's event.
>
> However does anyone know the remote participation details?
>

Apparently it will be:-

http://wef.ch/netmundial

p.

>
> From the FAQ: ' Both working sessions and the press conference will be
> webcast live, and there will be an active blog and discussion board
> established to facilitate a two-way flow of information with the public'
>
> p.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>>  I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI
>> initiative at the WEF.  Does anyone know?
>> Kind regards,
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>>
>>   I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web
>> Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?"
>>
>>  I found it interesting, especially from the civil society point of view.
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <chsharp at cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Nick, all,
>>> I hope you all are doing well.  Please keep in mind that what has been
>>> leaked is an invitation list, not an attendance list.  I don't assume it is
>>> a list of supporters.  I just don't see all the invited industry CEOs
>>> dropping everything on short notice and flying to Davos.
>>> I'm just going to have to wait and hear what those of you who choose to
>>> attend report back and what is reported out at IGF.
>>>
>>>  Chip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <
>>> nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear Joe and all,
>>>
>>>  I think Janis’ reply to yours below and Kathy’s after that captured
>>> the essence of what I would say. I would add two things:
>>>
>>>  From what has been leaked, the level of support is robust and broad;
>>> it is particularly welcome to see so many senior industry leaders from
>>> ‘non-traditional’ Internet governance-engaged firms on board this early. I
>>> also like hearing that major NGOs who have historically had limited time
>>> and effort for Internet policy are getting involved. We need their muscle,
>>> their ideas, and their expertise.
>>>
>>>  Secondly, I would add that as I know Rick Samans of WEF and have
>>> spoken to him at length about the Internet policy landscape I think the
>>> process will end up being a real asset to the very difficult situation that
>>> the Internet faces, where, frankly, the traditional 'Internet Governance’
>>> space is being wagged by much bigger and more powerful dogs to the
>>> detriment of everyone. We need new, and high level, engagement and new
>>> collaborative processes to get to a place where we are working from shared
>>> positive incentives and across much broader areas than traditional Internet
>>> Governance represents and covers.
>>>
>>>  Regards Nick
>>>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 12:52, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I wanted to write to echo many of Anriette's sentiments.  I too am
>>> writing in my personal capacity as we are canvassing the ICC-BASIS
>>> membership on their views.
>>>
>>> First, let me clarify that while business actively engaged in the Net
>>> Mundial meeting and supported it's outcomes, there were significant process
>>> and other shortcomings in the runup and operation of Net Mundial.  Business
>>> has not focused on these issues as we believed that it was more important
>>> to focus on achievements rather than shortcomings, but if there are
>>> attempts to institutionalize the concept of Net Mundial, then this line of
>>> inquiry will need to be explored in detail.
>>>
>>> Second, Net Mundial played an important role at a point in time, where
>>> reflection and inflection was needed; it served that purpose well.  It is
>>> unclear to me that there is any permanent need for such and event.
>>>
>>> Third, I would respectfully disagree with those most recent posts that
>>> justify the WEF initiative by the fumbling of IGF.  Can and should IGF be
>>> improved?  Yes, absolutely.  Does IGF play a useful role, even in its
>>> present role, I believe it does.  After these years of IGF we have begun to
>>> take the conversation it engenders for granted.  While these
>>> multistakeholder conversations don't yield immediate results they are the
>>> stepping stones to understanding and a foundation of consensus.  IGF
>>> remains one of the few places if not *the* place for such conversation
>>> to occur.  The frustration is that we don't build on the small victories in
>>> consensus, we don't properly capture the capacity building and we are not
>>> sufficiently innovative in considering how to approach these issues.  Net
>>> Mundial and the prep for this IGF has increased the focus on these topis
>>> and has generated some hope and anticipation for real improvements to be
>>> considered. These improvements  should not be made at the expense of the
>>> unique DNA of the organization - the avoidance of positions around
>>> negotiated text.  We have alphabets of three and four letter organizations
>>> already engaged in that trade and we need no more of those.
>>>
>>> Fourth, The WEF NMI.  I would concur that this is an inauspicious way to
>>> launch a multistakeholder initiative.  The process we are all engaged in
>>> now, rooting out facts and chasing down rumors, is somewhat reminiscent of
>>> what we were doing in Bali related to what would become Net Mundial. While
>>> there may be some beneficial need for positive engagement from the top,
>>> mutlistakeholder must also have bottom up roots.  WEF may have a role to
>>> play, but to do so they must be more transparent as to motivation,
>>> outcomes, process and participation.  It is also important for the WEF NMI
>>> to reinforce, as Net Mundial did, the important role of IGF and highlight
>>> how they will support that role and function.
>>>
>>> I would also like to point out that this fact clearing-house function
>>> may do more to return active participation to the 1net discuss list than
>>> any topic since Net Mundial.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote
>>>
>>> Thanks for this excellent post Anriette.  Obviously, I agree
>>> whole-heartedly.  I am very glad you are going, and I wish you all the luck
>>> in the world.  You will likely need it.
>>> Best wishes.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the Association
>>> for Progressive Communications, has not yet finalised its reaction to this
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> I have not been involved in the NETmundial initiative, but have been
>>> aware of it since ICANN 50 in London. I have been invited to the 28 August
>>> event.
>>>
>>> Aside from those concerns already stated on this list, which I share, I
>>> want to add I am not convinced that this initiative, based at the WEF, and
>>> adopting a 'get all the great leaders into the room' approach is what is
>>> really needed to build on the substantial achievements of the NETmundial.
>>>
>>> I have always been an admirer of initiative and risk taking in the
>>> service of the 'greater good' and I don't want to condemn the NETmundial
>>> initiative or its initiators.  I do believe it should be viewed critically
>>> however, as a lot is at stake.
>>>
>>> Getting process right is never easy, but it is important to try hard to
>>> do so, particularly when building something that is intended to be long
>>> term.
>>>
>>> The NETmundial process was not perfect, but it made a HUGE effort to be
>>> inclusive and transparent. The degree to which it succeeded contributed to
>>> its legitimacy and success.  The NETmundial Initiative needs to consider
>>> this very carefully.  Of course it makes sense to work with smaller groups
>>> of people to get any initiative going, but in the internet world, and
>>> probably in the world everywhere these days, not being transparent about
>>> how these smaller groups are constituted and how they operate is 1) a lost
>>> cause as leaking can be assumed, 2) not necessary and 3) probably somewhat
>>> foolish.
>>>
>>> But assuming that the NETmundial Initiative process will become more
>>> transparent and inclusive in the next few weeks, I still have a fundamental
>>> concern about its format and location.  I am not convinced that it is
>>> tactically what is really needed to build on the substantial achievements
>>> of the NETmundial, the IGF before it, and the many people who have tried to
>>> make multi-stakeholder internet policy processes work in the real world
>>> over the last decade.
>>>
>>> My reasons are (mostly) as follows:
>>>
>>> *1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics in
>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance*
>>>
>>> Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial
>>> statement a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of 'cheap'
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>> By that I mean that the final statement reflects consensus,
>>> disagreement, and issues that need follow-up and further elaboration. That
>>> not all agreed on the pre-final draft (there were some last minute
>>> disagreements about text related to  intermediary liability and
>>> surveillance) with the final version reflecting these negotiations actually
>>> makes it an even stronger document, in my view, even if some of the text I
>>> would have liked to see in it was excluded. To me this represents that the
>>> stakeholders involved in the development of the text were able to work
>>> together, and disagree. The disagreement was resolved in favour of the more
>>> power and influential - not civil society of course. I don't mind this. It
>>> reflects reality. And I know that civil society did also gain hugely with
>>> most of our demands making it through. Over time these power arrangements
>>> might change, and those of us working for the public interested in these
>>> processes have to keep on contesting, and negotiating. Multi-stakeholder
>>> processes where this does not happen are not worth the time we spend on
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Power and influence matters, and will continue to do so. In choosing a
>>> site for taking the NETmundial forward attention has to be given to
>>> ensuring that it is a platform where dynamics related to power and
>>> influence among stakeholders in IG is able to play themselves out on a
>>> relatively equal playing field, with that playing field becoming more equal
>>> as time goes on.
>>>
>>> WEF does not provide this.  Yes, certain big name civil society leaders
>>> attend WEF meetings. Others are present. Developing country leaders also
>>> attend, and it is seen as a powerful pro-business, pro US and Europe forum
>>> for reaching business leaders, and facilitating networking among the
>>> prominent and powerful (with some being both).
>>>
>>> But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive
>>> and bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the legitimacy
>>> and inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial outcomes at
>>> global, regional, and national levels? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I say this not to disrespect the staff of the WEF or people who
>>> participate in WEF forums, or of ICANN, or anyone else involved in the
>>> NETmundial initiative. But first and foremost as someone from a developing
>>> country who has experienced the ups and downs and highs and lows of
>>> multistakeholder IG for a long time and secondly as a member of civil
>>> society. To me WEF simply does not feel like a space where developing
>>> country people and civil society will ever have a equal power with powerful
>>> "northern" governments and global business.
>>>
>>> *2) What do we really need to*
>>>
>>> *operationalise and consolidate the NETmundial outcomes?  *Glamorous
>>> gatherings of the powerful and prominent in IG (be they government, from
>>> the north and the south, tech community, business or civil society) will
>>> help to keep networking going, create the opportunity for
>>> self-congratulation for those of us who were part of the NETmundial in some
>>> way (and I had the privilege to make submissions online, and to be involved
>>> in the co-chairing some of the drafting on site in Sao Paulo).
>>>
>>> But is that what is really needed to integrate what the NETmundial
>>> stands for (public interested, democratic multistakeholder and human rights
>>> oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of the internet
>>> in ways that will be felt by existing and future users?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I think that what is needed is  building lasting (and they have to be
>>> very strong because they will be attacked) bridges between a process such
>>> as NETmundial, and its outcomes, and institutions and people that make
>>> governance and regulatory decisions on a day to day basis. I want to see,
>>> for example, freedom of expression online enshrined in the contitutions of
>>> very government of the world. I want governments (and where relevant,
>>> businesses) to be held accountable for making sure that all people
>>> everywhere can access the internet.
>>>
>>> This means engaging those that are not yet part of the multi-stakeholder
>>> internet governance 'in-crowd'.  It requires working with national
>>> governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies as well as international
>>> onces, including those in the UN system.
>>>
>>> Will a NETmundial Initiative based at the WEF prevent the rejection of
>>> multi-stakeholder processes (and of women's rights for that matter) that
>>> was evident in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation?  Or efforts
>>> among ITU member states to increase governmental oversight over internet
>>> governance? Or tension between blocks of states with divides between the
>>> developed and the developing world?
>>>
>>> I think that is the test it will need to pass with flying colours if it
>>> were to make the gains that are needed, and that are not already being made
>>> through processes such as the IGF, even if only in part. And a good
>>> starting point would be to identify how those governments that were at the
>>> NETmundial, but whom did not support the final statement publicly (some
>>> said publicly they did not support it, and others failed to show support
>>> simply by staying silent).
>>>
>>> How do they feel about this WEF-based NETmundial initiative? I see some
>>> of them are invited. I know of at least one, present in Sao Paulo and
>>> invited to the NETmundial Initiative, who does not support either.
>>>
>>> Apologies for ranting and raving somewhat. The point I am trying to make
>>> is that for internet regulation across the ecosystem to comply with the
>>> principles in the NETmundial statement and get get the NETmundial roadmap
>>> used as a guide we don't need more expensive global gatherings.  We need
>>> existing governance institutions and processes, including those not yet on
>>> the multi-stakeholder bandwagon, to consider and adopt NETmundial
>>> principles and integrate those into their governance decisions and
>>> processes. And I am not convinced that a WEF based forum constituted in the
>>> way the NETmundial Initiative has been, is up to that task.
>>>
>>> *3) NETmundial **Initiative and the IGF and the broader internet
>>> community*
>>>
>>> The NETmundial outcome documents mentions the IGF repeatedly. It
>>> recommends strengthening of the IGF, and asks the IGF to take the
>>> discussion of complex IG issues forward. This reflects both the inputs
>>> received prior to the Sao Paulo meeting, as well as deliberations in Sao
>>> Paulo.  It reflects the will of those from ALL stakeholder groups who
>>> participated in the NETmundial.
>>>
>>> I therefore find completely inappropriate that an initiative which takes
>>> the name of the NETmundial, and which sets out to take the NETmundial
>>> outcomes forward, does not have a closer link to the IGF.
>>>
>>> In fact, at the very least it should have used the IGF as a platform for
>>> presenting itself and getting feedback from the broader community active in
>>> the internet governance ecosystem which has been using the IGF as its
>>> primary discussion space.
>>>
>>> The IGF is an existing forum that is still linked to the UN system, and
>>> through that, to those parts of the internet governance ecosystem populated
>>> by governments. It is a bridge. It needs to be stronger, and used more, but
>>> it exists and many of us has put a lot of work into it over the last 8
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after year,
>>> overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot come close
>>> to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be accommodated).
>>> Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and downs
>>> there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive.  The IGF process has not
>>> even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not at the level of
>>> interacting with other institutions and capturing and communicating the
>>> outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.
>>>
>>> 1000s of people have been working in this IGF processes, people who are
>>> trying to create change on the ground by getting different stakeholder
>>> groups to listen to one another and work towards a more inclusive and fair
>>> internet. People who are trying to find constructive ways of challenging
>>> practices (be they driven by governments or business) that, for example.
>>> blocks affordable access, or free expression on the internet.  If you count
>>> all the IGFs around the world we are talking about 10s of thousands of
>>> people.  The lack of respect shown to all these people and organisations by
>>> NETmundial Initiative rings loud alarm bells in my ears.
>>>
>>> I might be overly sensitive.  I will really happy if my skepticism
>>> proves to be unfounded as I really do believe that we need democratic
>>> multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and I believe that the
>>> NETmundial principles can help us get there.
>>>
>>> I guess I am also somewhat saddened.. having invested so much in th
>>> NETmundial, that this, the first initiative after April 2014 to take its
>>> name, is doing such a bad job at living up to what the NETmundial process
>>> principles advocate.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain wrote:m
>>>
>>>  I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to attention
>>> of the industry leaders and key government representatives Internet
>>> governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and promotion of
>>> the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the IGF as a
>>> multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging participation in its
>>> work of those companies and governments that haven't been involved until kn
>>>
>>> (l
>>>  Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was made of
>>> supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Cheers, wha
>>>
>>>  Chri
>>>
>>>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  As being one of invited to the launch event of the WEF initiative I
>>> would like to share information that I possess.
>>>
>>> The World Economic Forum is an international institution committed to
>>> improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation
>>> (statement on the website). WEFcommunities are various and more can be
>>> seen athttp://www.weforum.org/communities. Organizationally the WEFis
>>> membership organization where big multinationals from all over the world
>>> are widely represented. The WEF invites representatives of governments,
>>> academia, civil society, world of arts participate in their meetings and
>>> engage with key industry leaders. This explains why the invitees list is
>>> one you see.
>>>
>>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to attention
>>> of the industry leaders and key government representatives Internet
>>> governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and promotion of
>>> the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the IGF as a
>>> multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging participation in its
>>> work of those companies and governments that haven't been involved until
>>> know.
>>>
>>> I know that Alan Markus intends to present and discuss the initiative at
>>> the 2014 IGF meeting and there will be ample opportunity for the IG community
>>> to clarify details.
>>>
>>> I hope that this information is useful.
>>> JK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon<joana at varonferraz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *Current status of IG debate:* we need leaks to know what is going on!
>>>> Pretty bad for a start.
>>>>
>>>>  @jordan carter: "why a noted business centred forum is the place to
>>>> launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a question to be echoed indeed.
>>>>
>>>>  It is a shame after the whole attempt of NETMudial to innovate in a
>>>> meeting process, seeking some transparency, openness and inclusion,
>>>> something like this comes up under the same "brand". Hello Brazil?!
>>>>
>>>>  @jeremy and members of the so called "evil cabal", if you go, you
>>>> have an important role to feed people with the most important asset:
>>>> information. I bet we will be always prompt for feedback.
>>>>
>>>>  hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?
>>>>
>>>>  regards
>>>>
>>>>  joana
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>> @joana_varon
>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Seth Johnson<seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More that the IGF phase wasn't going to work.  IGF has always been in
>>>>> a tough spot, not so much fumbling the ball -- as if that's anything
>>>>> other than an endemic feature of any organization of a similar
>>>>> institutional nature -- but not empowered and pining for standing.
>>>>> But Netmundial wasn't executed well in that regard (they announced
>>>>> sponsorship of IGF, but they also weren't quite able to make things
>>>>> stick), so they need to patch he information society process up by a
>>>>> more blunt move that steps past IGF rather than going through a
>>>>> process of engaging folks in issues via IGF as per plan.  I think
>>>>> they're figuring they'll be able to just brazen it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > I think it's more the case that the IGF has so badly fumbled the
>>>>> ball that
>>>>> > it falls to someone - anyone - else to pick it up. But that is not to
>>>>> > discount the valid criticisms that others have expressed and that I
>>>>> agree
>>>>> > with.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Disclaimer: I'm a member of the evil cabal.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>>> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>> > https://eff.org
>>>>> > jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>> >
>>>>> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Can someone explain why a noted business centred forum is the place
>>>>> to
>>>>> > launch an Internet governance initiative?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I genuinely don't understand that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I thought the whole lesson of netmundial was that genuine multi
>>>>> stakeholder
>>>>> > approaches work well, not that it was a nice experiment to be
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It would be helpful if those who rule us, as it were, would rapidly
>>>>> disclose
>>>>> > some authoritative information.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jordan
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Thursday, 14 August 2014, Stephen Farrell <
>>>>> stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Gotta say... seems like elitist nonsense to me having looked
>>>>> >> at the invite list and other docs. The elitist part should be
>>>>> >> obvious. The nonsense part is due to  almost none of the list
>>>>> >> of invitees being known for knowing about the Internet. It
>>>>> >> seems much more an elite than an Internet-savvy list of folks
>>>>> >> being asked to form a new cabal. That said, cabals aren't all
>>>>> >> bad, and I've no reason to think very badly of this particular
>>>>> >> subset of the elite and its I guess just more meaningless policy
>>>>> >> stuff so I don't need to care very much.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That said, it seems a pity for this to be the next step after
>>>>> >> the Brazil gig which seemed relatively open.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> S.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 14/08/14 02:36, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> >> > Hi
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > I proposed several times to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET explore
>>>>> serving as
>>>>> >> > a more open multistakeholder vehicle for connecting people to the
>>>>> NETmundial
>>>>> >> > Initiative.  Several members expressed support for that, but
>>>>> since how the
>>>>> >> > NMI will evolve remains very unclear it’s hard to know ex ante
>>>>> how this
>>>>> >> > could work.  I made the same suggestion to Fadi in London, didn’t
>>>>> get much
>>>>> >> > reaction.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > As I understand the basic idea, NMI will have a six month launch
>>>>> managed
>>>>> >> > by WEF but the hope would be that this leads to something broader
>>>>> and more
>>>>> >> > inclusive in a second phase.  Not how I would have done it, but
>>>>> that said I
>>>>> >> > wouldn’t assume before the fact that the second phase will not
>>>>> come.  We
>>>>> >> > have to see for starters how the conversation goes 28 August and
>>>>> what is
>>>>> >> > possible…
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Bill
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> Hi,
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Just wondering, is this a proper list for those who have been
>>>>> catching
>>>>> >> >> bits and pieces of the ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to be
>>>>> >> >> discussed.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> I think it might be, and have even suggested it to others, but
>>>>> figured
>>>>> >> >> I
>>>>> >> >> better check first.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> avri
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> discuss mailing list
>>>>> >> >> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> >> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> > discuss mailing list
>>>>> >> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> >> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> discuss mailing list
>>>>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Jordan Carter
>>>>> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>>> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>>> > discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> `````````````````````````````````
>>> anriette esterhuysen
>>> executive director
>>> association for progressive communications
>>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/7cd994c1/attachment-0001.html>